Originally posted by AgentMil It also seems that there is two different compiles of mitioks binaries.

I downloaded one from mitioks site as soon as it was available, and then today I decided to download it again (because it was not on my laptop, and was too lazy to boot up desktop to copy file), and then went to run, I noticed that the ")" at the end of the (www.mp3-dev.org) had reappeared in the "new" exe as in the first release exe the ) was missing, so I booted up my desktop and did fc/b on the two exe, and found that it was different.

Removed the "fast" compiles, since with the latest compile the normal versions were actually slightly faster. For clarification, yes, that means that the new "normal" compile is faster than the old "fast" compile which was faster than the compiles on Mitiok's page.

Originally posted by Dibrom Uploaded an MSVC compile of 3.90.2 due to popular request. I do NOT recommend that people use this compile over the ICL compile though but they are now free to do so if they wish :)

Isn't the only tradeoff size vs. speed?

I thought the MSVC was more accurate because of less aggressive optimizations. How could this ever yield lower quality MP3, compared to ICL.

I thought the MSVC was more accurate because of less aggressive optimizations. How could this ever yield lower quality MP3, compared to ICL.

Once again, more accurate floating point precsion != better quality. For that matter, its not always a matter of float precision, sometimes ICL just changes the way the compiler handles things such as casts and rounding which may not comply 100% to the C standard but will offer greater speed and will usually bring very similar results.

At any rate, this difference may soon be a non-issue as the cause of the bitrate difference may have been pinpointed (I need to test some more to be sure).

Just found some interesting stuff after a short discussion on the lame-dev...

I've recompiled my ICL build and turned off one of the flags that is normally defaulted on. The results show that the compiled binaries are now extremely close in bitrate (often the same) to MSVC. Often times the new modified ICL compile very slightly differs in the bitrate histogram, but for the most part things are much closer and the speed hit isn't too bad. I'll probably post this compile a little later for people to mess around with since it basically offers the lower bitrates than MSVC does but with the speed of the normal ICL compiles.

kick ass! YOU GOT THE ICL FILE SIZE DOWN! Now there is no need for MSVC or for me to make my own gcc compiles. YES!!!!!!

just make sure mitiok knows about this new found ICL change so his compiles will produce smaller files too.

WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! /me does backflip!

p.s. Dibrom. You know how you were showing me where to get the official CVS site for the LAME source code? Well, as I found HERE, under "latest versions/In tar.bz2 format", a link to this site... ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/ ... with the latest source strait from cvs, packed into one nice little tar.bz2 file. just to let you know, incase you didn't.

Originally posted by SNYder kick ass! YOU GOT THE ICL FILE SIZE DOWN! Now there is no need for MSVC or for me to make my own gcc compiles. YES!!!!!!

Hehe..

QUOTE

just make sure mitiok knows about this new found ICL change so his compiles will produce smaller files too.

Eh... don't think this is too likely to happen (/me vaguely refers to the crap going on at lame-dev)..

QUOTE

p.s. Dibrom. You know how you were showing me where to get the official CVS site for the LAME source code? Well, as I found HERE, under "latest versions/In tar.bz2 format" is a link to this site... ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/ ... with the latest source strait from cvs. just to let you know.

Yes, this is where Mitiok gets his source from. I prefer getting it straight from CVS though instead of going through someone else who also gets it from CVS

Originally posted by Dibrom Eh... don't think this is too likely to happen (/me vaguely refers to the crap going on at lame-dev)...

Huh?

I believe you are refering to their bitching about you making a 3.90.2 and other junk that is making you consider forking lame. Am I right?

If so, what does that have to do with Mitiok and him just changing one simple switch to make his compiles produce smaller files? =

you see, the reason I got so happy was because I thought Mitiok was going to be doing this thingy too... So I could just stop by his site and grap the latest compile when I need to make an mp3 for one of my artists mp3 sites and know they will be the same size as a MSVC or GCC compiled version. But if he doesn't do it, then I'm still gonna have to compile my own because your not always gonna be making compiles available for download. Only when you add stuff, or when there is an increase in quality.

In other words, I was happy because I knew that no matter when it was I needed to make and upload an mp3, I would be able to get the latest compile and do my thing. Now, if the compile you have up isn't the latest, I'll have to make my own... Sure the quality might not be different, but I'm pretty damn close to being obsesive compulsive about this type of thing I need to use the latest version of everything (except Windows Media Player) or else I go INSANE!!!

QUOTE

Originally posted by Dibrom Yes, this is where Mitiok gets his source from. I prefer getting it straight from CVS though instead of going through someone else who also gets it from CVS

Well, I don't even know how to download the entire CVS thingy yet, so this is rather conventient.

QUOTE

Originally posted by Dibrom The problem is that this source isn't from CVS, it's only from official builds, so you can't really use it for testing much.

I'm not sure I get what your saying. Are they compiled by the LAME developers themselves (which would make the official ) or somthing?

QUOTE

Originally posted by Dibrom RPM is the Redhat (Linux) packaging format.

I believe you are refering to their bitching about you making a 3.90.2 and other junk that is making you consider forking lame. Am I right?

Yes.

QUOTE

If so, what does that have to do with Mitiok and him just changing one simple switch to make his compiles produce smaller files? =

Umm.. because Mitiok is busy spending all of his time trolling me there.. heh. After the initial discussion just died down, he decided to start a new thread about it again... argh. At any rate, I have enough to worry about just trying to take care of the people on this site.. and especially with the circumstances, I have little desire to go out of my way to try and "suggest" this to such a person.

QUOTE

you see, the reason I got so happy was because I thought Mitiok was going to be doing this thingy too... So I could just stop by his site and grap the latest compile when I need to make an mp3 for one of my artists mp3 sites and know they will be the same size as a MSVC or GCC compiled version. But if he doesn't do it, then I'm still gonna have to compile my own because your not always gonna be making compiles available for download.

Says who?

I'm going to be making compiles available for download from now on, and my compiles will be synchronized with any major quality developments also... so from that standpoint you'd be even safer to use mine.

QUOTE

Only when you add stuff, or when there is an increase in quality.

I'll be making compiles available that mirror improvements in functionality and quality. Nightly compiles are not really necessary.

QUOTE

In other words, I was happy because I knew that no matter when it was I needed to make and upload an mp3, I would be able to get the latest compile and do my thing. Now, if the compile you have up isn't the latest, I'll have to make my own... Sure the quality might not be different, but I'm pretty damn close to being obsesive compulsive about this type of thing I need to use the latest version of everything (except Windows Media Player) or else I go INSANE!!!

Well the sad fact of that matter is that Mitiok and I do not work together. I thought we did, but he seems to have mood swings to where one day he'll link to my site and be more than happy to work with me, then the next day he won't like a revision number on my compile or something I say about quality so he'll remove it all again.. heh.

It seems the more I do with LAME, the more I end up having to rely on myself and the people that help me run this site because many others already established in the community end up having "issues" with something that I'm doing, whether it be improving a preset they think is pointless or providing a bug fixed compile so people can actually have a nice release for christmas and a relatively bug free 3.90 after nearly a year and a half. Sometimes you just gotta wonder what the hell some people are thinking when they make such a fuss about what should be a good thing.

QUOTE

[b]Well, I don't even know how to download the entire CVS thingy yet, so this is rather conventient.

CVS isn't hard to use really. All you need is CVS.exe if you are on windows, and you just type in the exact command shown on the LAME CVS page.. it will checkout the LAME source and expand it in the directory you run the .exe from.

QUOTE

I'm not sure I get what your saying. Are they compiled by the LAME developers themselves (which would make the official ) or somthing?

I know that the small mistake in alt-preset fast standard in 3.90 is gone in 3.90.2

What about alt-preset fast extreme? Is there a similar bug as in fast std?? Or was it only in fast standard???

Thanks in advance for your reply

And another thing: Since fast standard and fast extreme are equally speedy, is there a reason not to use fast extreme instead of fast standard despite of the space issue? I don't here differences (don't have the high-end equipment anyway).
Would you advise to use fast standard because it is maybe more tweaked or tested?

Originally posted by Dibrom Well the sad fact of that matter is that Mitiok and I do not work together. I thought we did, but he seems to have mood swings to where one day he'll link to my site and be more than happy to work with me, then the next day he won't like a revision number on my compile or something I say about quality so he'll remove it all again.. heh.

It seems the more I do with LAME, the more I end up having to rely on myself and the people that help me run this site because many others already established in the community end up having "issues" with something that I'm doing, whether it be improving a preset they think is pointless or providing a bug fixed compile so people can actually have a nice release for christmas and a relatively bug free 3.90 after nearly a year and a half. Sometimes you just gotta wonder what the hell some people are thinking when they make such a fuss about what should be a good thing.

well... if that's how it has to be. so be it. you still got this community backing you up.

QUOTE

Originally posted by Dibrom Says who?

I'm going to be making compiles available for download from now on, and my compiles will be synchronized with any major quality developments also... so from that standpoint you'd be even safer to use mine.

I'll be making compiles available that mirror improvements in functionality and quality. Nightly compiles are not really necessary.

it basically offers the lower bitrates than MSVC does but with the speed of the normal ICL compiles.

Wow!That's the best news I've heard since alt-presets were released!
Good work!
Could you specify what exactly is that flag you've changed? I'm very curious.

Maybe you should add a small note about that change to the main "List of recommended Lame compiles" post because otherwise some ppl will be downloading MSVC because they think it still produces 3% smaller files. Most ppl don't read replies to the "Recommended settings/compiles" posts and they may not notice that (IMO very significant) change.
Just to be sure, you've already upgraded the links with the modified versions of compiles, right?

QUOTE

Well the sad fact of that matter is that Mitiok and I do not work together. I thought we did, but he seems to have mood swings to where one day he'll link to my site and be more than happy to work with me, then the next day he won't like a revision number on my compile or something I say about quality so he'll remove it all again.. heh.

I'm very sad to hear that.
It would suck if because of stuff like that he didn't change the settings for his compiles. I don't want the Lame project to be affected by issues like that. Is there anything we can do about that?

Originally posted by olcios Could you specify what exactly is that flag you've changed? I'm very curious.

/QIfist and/or /Qrcd

QUOTE

Maybe you should add a small note about that change to the main "List of recommended Lame compiles" post because otherwise some ppl will be downloading MSVC because they think it still produces 3% smaller files.

I'll be completely removing the MSVC compile soon so that should take care of the issue. I may still add a note of some sort though, we'll see.

QUOTE

Just to be sure, you've already upgraded the links with the modified versions of compiles, right?

Nope, I haven't had time in the last few days since I've been moving. I only have limited computer and internet access at the moment so I won't be able to fix this until I compile 3.91 (which is taking a bit longer due to a few decisions I recently made which I'll specify shortly).

QUOTE

I don't want the Lame project to be affected by issues like that. Is there anything we can do about that?

Not really.. but LAME being Open Source, we have the power to do what we think needs to be done on our own regardless of what other people are not doing when they should be. Sometimes we take some flack over this (think 3.90.2) though, but as long as progress is being made and the actual "users" are made happy by these actions...

I'm going to just keep doing what I do now. That is, work on this website, continue to work on the Tools sphoid and I have mentioned on occasion (we may see the first part released pretty soon here now..) and work on LAME. I don't really have the time, energy, or desire to worry about what other people are doing or not doing anymore at this point.